GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc3395

Network Working Group A. Bierman Request for Comments: 3395 C. Bucci Updates: 2895 Cisco Systems, Inc. Category: Standards Track R. Dietz

                                                            Hifn, Inc.
                                                              A. Warth
                                                        September 2002

Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifier Reference Extensions

Status of this Memo

 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
 and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

 This memo defines extensions to the Protocol Identifier Reference
 document for the identification of application verb information.  It
 updates the Protocol Identifier Reference document but does not
 obsolete any portion of that document.  In particular, it describes
 the algorithms required to identify protocol operations (verbs)
 within the protocol encapsulations managed with MIBs such as the
 Remote Network Monitoring MIB Version 2, RFC 2021.

Table of Contents

 1. The SNMP Network Management Framework ..........................2
 2. Overview .......................................................3
 2.1 Protocol Identifier Framework .................................3
 2.2 Protocol Identifier Extensions for Application Verbs ..........4
 2.3 Terms .........................................................4
 2.4 Relationship to the RMON-2 MIB ................................5
 2.5 Relationship to the RMON MIB Protocol Identifier Reference.....5
 3. Definitions ....................................................5
 3.1 Verb Identifier Macro Format ..................................5
 3.1.1 Lexical Conventions .........................................6
 3.1.2 Extended Grammar for the PI Language ........................6
 3.1.3 Mapping of the Parent Protocol Name .........................7
 3.1.4 Mapping of the DESCRIPTION Clause ...........................7

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

 3.1.5 Mapping of the REFERENCE Clause .............................7
 3.1.6 Mapping of the Verb List Clause .............................7
 3.1.6.1 Mapping of the Verb Name Field ............................8
 3.1.6.2 Mapping of the Verb Enum Field ............................8
 3.2 Protocol Directory Requirements ...............................8
 3.2.1 Mapping of the Verb Layer Numbering Space ...................8
 3.2.2 Mapping of the ProtocolDirID object .........................9
 3.2.3 Mapping of the ProtocolDirParameters object .................9
 3.2.4 Mapping of the ProtocolDirLocalIndex object ................10
 3.2.5 Mapping of the protocolDirDescr object .....................10
 3.2.6 Mapping of the protocolDirType object ......................10
 3.2.7 Mapping of the protocolDirAddressMapConfig object ..........10
 3.2.8 Mapping of the protocolDirHostConfig object ................10
 3.2.9 Mapping of the protocolDirMatrixConfig object ..............10
 3.2.10 Mapping of the protocolDirOwner object ....................11
 3.2.11 Mapping of the protocolDirStatus object ...................11
 4. Implementation Considerations .................................11
 4.1 Stateful Protocol Decoding ...................................11
 4.2 Packet Capture ...............................................11
 4.3 RMON-2 MIB Collections .......................................12
 5. Intellectual Property .........................................12
 6. Acknowledgements ..............................................13
 7. Normative References ..........................................13
 8. Informative References ........................................14
 9. IANA Considerations ...........................................15
 10. Security Considerations ......................................15
 Appendix A: Usage Examples .......................................16
 A.1 FTP Example ..................................................16
 A.2 POP3 Example .................................................17
 A.3 SNMP Example .................................................18
 A.4 HTTP Example .................................................18
 A.5 SMTP Example .................................................19
 Authors' Addresses ...............................................20
 Full Copyright Statement..........................................21

1. The SNMP Network Management Framework

 The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major
 components:
    o  An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 [RFC2571].
    o  Mechanisms for describing and naming objects and events for the
       purpose of management.  The first version of this Structure of
       Management Information (SMI) is called SMIv1 and is described
       in STD 16, RFC 1155 [RFC1155], STD 16, RFC 1212 [RFC1212] and

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

       RFC 1215 [RFC1215].  The second version, called SMIv2, is
       described in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and
       RFC 2580 [RFC2580].
    o  Message protocols for transferring management information.  The
       first version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and
       is described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [RFC1157].  A second version
       of the SNMP message protocol, which is not an Internet
       standards track protocol, is called SNMPv2c and is described in
       RFC 1901 [RFC1901] and RFC 1906 [RFC1906].  The third version
       of the message protocol is called SNMPv3 and is described in
       RFC 1906 [RFC1906], RFC 2572 [RFC2572] and RFC 2574 [RFC2574].
    o  Protocol operations for accessing management information.  The
       first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is
       described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [RFC1157].  A second set of
       protocol operations and associated PDU formats is described in
       RFC 1905 [RFC1905].
    o  A set of fundamental applications is described in RFC 2573
       [RFC2573].  The view-based access control mechanism is
       described in RFC 2575 [RFC2575].
 A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework
 can be found in RFC 2570 [RFC2570].
 Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
 the Management Information Base or MIB.  Objects in the MIB are
 defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI.
 This memo does not specify a MIB module.

2. Overview

 There is a need for a standardized way of identifying the protocol
 operations defined for particular application protocols.  Different
 protocol operations can have very different performance
 characteristics, and it is desirable to collect certain metrics at
 this level of granularity.  This memo defines extensions to the
 existing protocol identifier structure [RFC2895] and is intended to
 update, not obsolete, the existing protocol identifier encoding
 rules.

2.1 Protocol Identifier Framework

 The RMON Protocol Identifier (PI) structure [RFC2895] allows for a
 variable number of layer identifiers.  Each layer contributes 4
 octets to the protocolDirID OCTET STRING and one octet to the

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

 protocolDirParameters OCTET STRING.  These two MIB objects comprise
 the index in the protocolDirTable [RFC2021] and represent a globally
 unique identifier for a particular protocol encapsulation (or set of
 encapsulations if the wild-card base layer is used).

2.2 Protocol Identifier Extensions for Application Verbs

 The existing RMON protocol identifier architecture requires that an
 application verb be represented by one additional protocol layer,
 appended to the protocol identifier for the parent application.
 Since some application verbs are defined as strings which can exceed
 4 octets in length, an integer mapping must be provided for each
 string.  This memo specifies how the verb layer is structured, as
 well as a verb identifier macro syntax for specification of verb name
 to integer mappings.

2.3 Terms

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
 This document uses some terms defined in the RMON Protocol Identifier
 Reference document [RFC2895] and some new terms that need
 introduction here.
 Application Verb
    Also called simply 'verb'.  Refers to one of potentially many
    protocol operations that are defined by a particular application
    protocol.
    Note that an application verb is not equivalent to an application
    protocol sub-command or opcode within a packet containing a PDU
    for the application.  An application verb is a transaction type
    and may involve several PDU types within the application protocol
    (e.g., SNMP Get-PDU and Response-PDU).  In some applications, a
    verb may encompass protocol operations pertaining to more than one
    protocol entry in the protocol directory (e.g., ftp and ftp-data).
 Connect Verb
    The special application verb associated with connection or session
    setup and tear-down traffic, and not attributed to any other verb
    for the application.  This verb is assigned the enumeration value
    of zero, and the verb 'connect(0)' is implicitly defined for all
    application protocols.

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

 Parent Application
    One of potentially many protocol encapsulations which identifies a
    particular application protocol.  This term refers generically to
    any or all such encapsulations for a given set of application
    verbs.
 Verb Layer
    The portion of the protocol identifier octet string which
    identifies the application verb.
 Verb Set
    The group of verbs enumerated for a particular application
    protocol.  The list of verb strings within a particular verb-
    identifier macro invocation is also called the verb set for that
    verb identifier.

2.4 Relationship to the RMON-2 MIB

 The RMON-2 MIB [RFC2021] contains the protocolDirTable MIB objects
 used to identify all protocol encapsulations that can be monitored by
 a particular RMON agent.
 This memo describes how these MIB objects are mapped by an
 implementation for entries which identify application verbs. This
 document does not define any new MIB objects to identify application
 verbs.  The applicability of the definitions in this document is not
 limited to the RMON-2 MIB. Other specifications which utilize the
 RMON-2 protocolDirTable and/or the protocol identifier macros which
 it represents can also utilize the application verb macro definitions
 contained in this document.

2.5 Relationship to the RMON MIB Protocol Identifier Reference

 The RMON MIB Protocol Identifier Reference [RFC2895] defines the RMON
 Protocol Identifier Macro Specification Language as well as the
 encoding rules for the ProtocolDirID and protocolDirParameters OCTET
 STRINGs.  This memo defines extensions to the Protocol Identifier
 Reference for the identification of application verb information.  It
 does not obsolete any portion of the Protocol Identifier Reference
 document.

3. Definitions

3.1 Verb Identifier Macro Format

 The following example is meant to introduce the verb-identifier
 macro.  This macro-like construct is used to represent protocol verbs
 for a specific parent application.

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

3.1.1 Lexical Conventions

 The following keyword is added to the PI language:
     VERB-IDENTIFIER

3.1.2 Extended Grammar for the PI Language

 The following is the extended BNF notation for the grammar with
 starting symbol <piFile>.  It is for representing verb identifier
 macros.  Note that only the term <piFile> is actually modified from
 the definition in [RFC2895].  The <piDefinition> syntax is not
 reproduced here, since this memo is intended to extend that
 definition, not replace it.
  1. - a file containing one or more
  2. - Protocol Identifier (PI) definitions

<piFile> = [ <piDefinition> | <piVerbDefinition> ]…

  1. - a PI definition

<piVerbDefinition> =

       [<wspace>] <parentProtoName> <wspace> "VERB-IDENTIFIER"
             <wspace> "DESCRIPTION" <wspace> string
           [ <wspace> "REFERENCE" <wspace> string ]
           [<wspace>] "::=" [<wspace>]
           "{" [<wspace>] <verbList> [<wspace>] "}" [<wspace>]
  1. - a list of verb identifier string

<verbList> = <verbId> [ [<wspace>] "," [<wspace>] <verbId> ]…

  1. - a verb identifier string

<verbId> = <verbName> [<wspace>] "(" [<wspace>]

               <verbEnum> [<wspace>] ")" [<wspace>]
  1. - a protocol name

<parentProtoName> = <protoName>

  1. - a verb name

<verbName> = <lcname>

  1. - a verb enumeration

<verbEnum> = <posNum>

  1. - a positive integer

<posNum> = any integer value greater than zero and

                less than 16,777,216
  1. - <piDefinition> syntax is defined in [RFC2895]

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

  1. - <protoName> syntax is defined in [RFC2895]
  2. - <wspace> syntax is defined in [RFC2895]
  3. - <lcname> syntax is defined in [RFC2895]

3.1.3 Mapping of the Parent Protocol Name

 The "parentProtoName" value, called the "parent protocol name",
 SHOULD be an ASCII string consisting of 1 to 64 characters.  (These
 names are intended to appear in IETF documentation, so the use of
 UTF-8 is not appropriate.)  The encoding rules are exactly as
 specified in section 6.2.4 of [RFC2895] for the mapping of the
 protocol name field.  The value for <parentProtoName> (which is
 called the "parent protocol name") MUST be the value of a protocol
 identifier defined as specified for <protoName> in section 3.2.4 of
 [RFC2895].  The value of <parentProtoName> MUST specify a <protoName>
 defined in the <piFile>.
 A protocol identifier macro SHOULD exist in the <piFile> for at least
 one encapsulation of the parent application protocol if any verb
 identifier macros referencing that parent application are present in
 the <piFile>.

3.1.4 Mapping of the DESCRIPTION Clause

 The DESCRIPTION clause provides a textual description of the protocol
 verb set identified by this macro.  It SHOULD NOT contain details
 about items covered by the REFERENCE clause.  The DESCRIPTION clause
 MUST be present in all verb-identifier macro declarations.

3.1.5 Mapping of the REFERENCE Clause

 If a publicly available reference document exists for this set of
 application protocol verbs, it SHOULD be listed here.  Typically this
 will be a URL, otherwise it will be the name and address of the
 controlling body.
 The REFERENCE clause is optional but SHOULD be present if an
 authoritative reference exists which specifies the application
 protocol verbs defined in the <verbList> section of this macro.

3.1.6 Mapping of the Verb List Clause

 The verb list clause MUST be present.  It is used to identify a list
 of application verb names and associate a numeric constant with each
 verb name.  At least one verb MUST be specified and a maximum of
 16,777,215 (2^^24 - 1) verbs MAY be specified.  This enumerated list
 SHOULD be densely numbered (i.e., valued from '1' to 'N', where 'N'
 is the total number of verbs defined in the macro).

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

3.1.6.1 Mapping of the Verb Name Field

 The <verbName> field is case-sensitive and SHOULD be set to the most
 appropriate string name for each application verb.  If such a
 descriptive string is defined in an authoritative document then that
 string SHOULD be used.  If no such string exists then an appropriate
 but arbitrary string should be selected for this value.
 Verb names MUST be unique for a particular parent application.  Note
 that the special 'connect(0)' verb is implicitly defined for each
 application protocol.  It is possible for an explicit definition of
 this verb (e.g., 'connect(8)' for http) to exist for a protocol, as
 well as the implicit 'connect(0)' verb.

3.1.6.2 Mapping of the Verb Enum Field

 The <verbEnum> field MUST be unique for all verbs associated with a
 particular parent application.  This field SHOULD contain a value
 between '1' and '16,777,215' inclusive.

3.2 Protocol Directory Requirements

 This section defines how the protocolDirTable should be populated for
 any application verb identified with a verb-identifier macro.
 An agent MUST implement all applicable protocolDirTable MIB objects
 on behalf of each supported application verb.

3.2.1 Mapping of the Verb Layer Numbering Space

 The verb layer consists of the 4 octets within the protocolDirID
 INDEX field which identify a particular application verb.
                   Figure 1
               Verb Layer Format
               -----------------
          protocolDirID string fragment
      ---+--------+--------+--------+--------+
         | resrvd |                          |
      .. | set to |  verb enumeration value  |
         | zero   |   (a)     (b)      (c)   |
      ---+--------+--------+--------+--------+ octet
         |    1   |             3            | count
 The first octet is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

 The next three octets identify the <verbEnum> field used to enumerate
 the particular application verb represented by the <verbName> field.
 This field is a 24-bit unsigned integer, encoded in network byte
 order.
 The value zero is reserved to identify the special 'connect(0)' verb.
 This verb enumeration value (i.e., '0' part of 'connect(0)') MUST NOT
 be redefined in a verb identifier macro verb list.  Note that the
 verb name 'connect' is not reserved and MAY be redefined in a verb
 list.

3.2.2 Mapping of the ProtocolDirID object

 The protocolDirID OCTET STRING value for a particular application
 verb is represented by the protocolDirID value for the parent
 application, appended with the verb's layer identifier value.
                      Figure 2
            ProtocolDirID Format for Verbs
            ------------------------------
              protocolDirID string
         +--------+--------+--------+--------+
         |        parent            |  verb  |
         |    protocolDirID         | layer  |
         |        string            | value  |
         +--------+--------+--------+--------+ octet
         |   length of parent ID    |   4    | count
 The protocolDirID object is encoded as the protocolDirID value of the
 parent application, followed by four additional octets representing
 the verb layer.  The verb layer value is encoded as [0.a.b.c] where
 'a' is the high order byte, 'b' is the middle order byte, and 'c' is
 the low order byte of the <verbEnum> field for the specific
 application verb value. A valid PI verb enumeration will be encoded
 in the range "0.0.0.0" to "0.255.255.255", where the special value
 "0.0.0.0" is reserved for the implicitly defined 'connect(0)' verb.

3.2.3 Mapping of the ProtocolDirParameters object

 The protocolDirParameters OCTET STRING value for a particular
 application verb is represented by the protocolDirParameters value
 for the parent application, appended with one octet containing the
 value zero.  Although not actually used, this field is included to
 conform to the encoding rules defined in the Protocol Identifiers
 Reference [RFC2895].

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

3.2.4 Mapping of the ProtocolDirLocalIndex object

 The agent MUST assign an appropriate protocolDirLocalIndex value for
 each application verb according to the encoding rules defined for
 this object in [RFC2021] and [RFC2895].

3.2.5 Mapping of the protocolDirDescr object

 The agent MUST convey the <verbName> value for a particular
 application verb in the protocolDirDescr object.  This object SHOULD
 be encoded as the protocolDirDescr value for the parent application
 appended with a 'dot' character, followed by the exact text contained
 in the <verbName> field.

3.2.6 Mapping of the protocolDirType object

 The agent MUST set the protocolDirType object for each application
 verb to the value representing the empty bit set ( {} ).

3.2.7 Mapping of the protocolDirAddressMapConfig object

 The agent MUST set the protocolDirAddressMapConfig object for each
 application verb to the value 'notSupported(1)'.

3.2.8 Mapping of the protocolDirHostConfig object

 The agent MUST set the protocolDirHostConfig object for each
 application verb present in the protocol directory according to the
 monitoring capabilities for each verb.  The agent MAY set this object
 to the same value as configured in the parent application
 protocolDirHostConfig object.  The agent MAY choose to transition
 this object from the value 'supportedOn(2)' to 'supportedOff(3)' if
 the parent application protocolDirHostConfig object first transitions
 from 'supportedOn(2)' to 'supportedOff(3)'.

3.2.9 Mapping of the protocolDirMatrixConfig object

 The agent MUST set the protocolDirMatrixConfig object for each
 application verb according to the monitoring capabilities for each
 verb.  The agent MAY set this object to the same value as configured
 in the parent application protocolDirMatrixConfig object.  The agent
 MAY choose to transition this object from the value 'supportedOn(2)'
 to 'supportedOff(3)' if the parent application
 protocolDirMatrixConfig object first transitions from
 'supportedOn(2)' to 'supportedOff(3)'.

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

3.2.10 Mapping of the protocolDirOwner object

 This object is encoded exactly the same for application verbs as for
 other protocolDirTable entries, according to the rules specified in
 the RMON-2 MIB [RFC2021].

3.2.11 Mapping of the protocolDirStatus object

 This object is encoded exactly the same for application verbs as for
 other protocolDirTable entries, according to the rules specified in
 RMON-2 MIB [RFC2021].

4. Implementation Considerations

 This section discusses the implementation implications for agents
 which support verbs in the protocol directory and the RMON
 collections which utilize the protocol directory.

4.1 Stateful Protocol Decoding

 Implementations of the RMON-2 MIB for application layer and network
 layer protocols typically require little if any state to be
 maintained by the probe.  The probe can generally decide whether to
 count a packet and its octets on the packet's own merits, without
 referencing or updating any state information.
 Implementations of the RMON-2 MIB at the verb layer will, for many
 protocols, need to maintain state information in order to correctly
 classify a packet as "belonging" to one verb or another.  The
 examples below illustrate this point.
 For SNMP over UDP, a Response-PDU for an SNMP Get-PDU can't be
 distinguished from a Response-PDU for a Getnext-PDU.  A probe would
 need to maintain state information in order to correlate a Response-
 PDU from B to A with a previous request from A to B.
 For application protocols carried over a stream-based transport such
 as TCP, the information required to identify an application verb can
 span several packets.  A probe would need to follow the transport-
 layer flow in order to correctly parse the application-layer data.

4.2 Packet Capture

 For packet capture based on verb-layer protocol directory filtering,
 the decision to include a packet in the capture buffer may need to be
 deferred until the packet can be conclusively attributed to a

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

 particular verb.  A probe may need to pre-buffer packets while
 deciding to include or exclude them from capture based on other
 packets that have not yet arrived.

4.3 RMON-2 MIB Collections

 Data collections such as the protocol distribution or Application
 Layer Host Table (alHostTable) require that each packet is counted
 only once, i.e., a given packet is fully classified as a single
 protocol encapsulation which resolves to a single leaf entry in the
 protocol directory.  Also, octet counters related to protocol
 classification are incremented by the entire size of packet, not just
 the octets associated with a particular encapsulation layer.
 It is possible that particular application protocols will allow
 multiple types of verbs to be present in a single packet.  In this
 case, the agent MUST choose one verb type, and therefore one protocol
 directory entry, in order to properly count such a packet.
 It is an implementation-specific matter as to which verb type an
 agent selects to identify a packet in the event more than one verb
 type is present in that packet.  Some possible choices include:
  1. the first verb type encountered in the packet
  1. the verb type with the most instances in the packet
  1. the verb type using the largest number of octets in the packet
  1. the most 'interesting' verb type in the packet (based on

knowledge of that application protocol).

5. Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
 has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of
 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
 Director.

6. Acknowledgements

 This memo is a product of the RMONMIB WG.

7. Normative References

 [RFC1905] SNMPv2 Working Group, Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M.
           and S. Waldbusser, "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of
           the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905,
           January 1996.
 [RFC1906] SNMPv2 Working Group, Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M.
           and S.  Waldbusser, "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of
           the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906,
           January 1996.
 [RFC2021] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring MIB (RMON-2)",
           RFC 2021, January 1997.
 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
           3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
           Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC2571] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture
           for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, April
           1999.
 [RFC2572] Case, J., Harrington D., Presuhn R. and B. Wijnen, "Message
           Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network
           Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2572, April 1999.
 [RFC2573] Levi, D., Meyer, P. and B. Stewart, "SNMPv3 Applications",
           RFC 2573, April 1999.
 [RFC2574] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model
           (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management
           Protocol (SNMPv3)", RFC 2574, April 1999.

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

 [RFC2575] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R. and K. McCloghrie, "View-based
           Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network
           Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2575, April 1999.
 [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
           Rose, M.  and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management
           Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April
           1999.
 [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
           Rose, M.  and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for
           SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
 [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
           Rose, M.  and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for
           SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999.
 [RFC2895] Bierman, A., Bucci, C. and R. Iddon, "Remote Network
           Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifiers", RFC 2895, August
           2000.

8. Informative References

 [RFC1155] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification
           of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", STD
           16, RFC 1155, May 1990.
 [RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M. and J. Davin, "Simple
           Network Management Protocol", STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990.
 [RFC1212] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", STD
           16, RFC 1212, March 1991.
 [RFC1215] Rose, M., "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the
           SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991.
 [RFC1901] SNMPv2 Working Group, Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M.
           and S.  Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based
           SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January 1996.
 [RFC2570] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart,
           "Introduction to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network
           Management Framework", RFC 2570, April 1999.

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

9. IANA Considerations

 At this time there are no application protocol verbs defined that
 require IANA registration, similar to the 'ianaAssigned' protocol
 identifiers found in RFC 2895.  It is remotely possible that a future
 version of this document will contain application verb definitions
 which require assignment in the 'ianaAssigned' protocol identifier
 subtree.

10. Security Considerations

 This memo defines the structure of a portion of the Remote Monitoring
 MIB framework, but does not define any MIB objects or protocol
 operations.  Instead, it defines algorithms for representing
 application protocol verbs in RMON Protocol Identifiers.  It does not
 introduce any new security risks into a managed system.
 However, if an MIB collection is designed which utilizes this type of
 Protocol Identifier, then such a collection may expose which verbs in
 an application protocol are used in a network.  Inclusion of this
 additional information may require more consideration for protection.
 MIB writers should address such considerations.

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

Appendix A: Usage Examples

 The following examples are listed to demonstrate how RMON verb
 identifiers are declared.

A.1 FTP Example

 This example defines verb enumeration values for the File Transfer
 Protocol as defined in RFC 959 and updated by RFC 2228 and RFC 2640.
 Note that verb name strings specified in the <verbName> field are not
 limited to 4 characters in length. In the FTP protocol, all the
 command names are 4 characters in length and the verb name string
 should match the official command name as closely as possible.
 ftp VERB-IDENTIFIER
     DESCRIPTION
       "The set of verbs for FTP is derived from the list
        of commands defined for the File Transfer Protocol,
        which are identified by case-insensitive strings.
        The commands are simply listed in the order found
        in the FTP documentation."
     REFERENCE
       "File Transfer Protocol, RFC 959, Section 4.1;
        FTP Security Extensions, RFC 2228, Section 3;
        Internationalization of the File Transfer Protocol,
        RFC 2640, Section 4.1."
     ::= {
           user(1),     -- USER NAME
           pass(2),     -- PASSWORD
           acct(3),     -- ACCOUNT
           cwd(4),      -- CHANGE WORKING DIRECTORY
           cdup(5),     -- CHANGE TO PARENT DIRECTORY
           smnt(6),     -- STRUCTURE MOUNT
           rein(7),     -- REINITIALIZE
           quit(8),     -- LOGOUT
           port(9),     -- DATA PORT
           pasv(10),    -- PASSIVE
           type(11),    -- REPRESENTATION TYPE
           stru(12),    -- FILE STRUCTURE
           mode(13),    -- TRANSFER MODE
           retr(14),    -- RETRIEVE
           stor(15),    -- STORE
           stou(16),    -- STORE UNIQUE
           appe(17),    -- APPEND (with create)
           allo(18),    -- ALLOCATE
           rest(19),    -- RESTART
           rnfr(20),    -- RENAME FROM
           rnto(21),    -- RENAME TO

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

           abor(22),    -- ABORT
           dele(23),    -- DELETE
           rmd(24),     -- REMOVE DIRECTORY
           mkd(25),     -- MAKE DIRECTORY
           pwd(26),     -- PRINT WORKING DIRECTORY
           list(27),    -- LIST
           nlst(28),    -- NAME LIST
           site(29),    -- SITE PARAMETERS
           syst(30),    -- SYSTEM
           stat(31),    -- STATUS
           help(32),    -- HELP
           noop(33),    -- NOOP
           auth(34),    -- AUTHENTICATION/SECURITY MECHANISM
           adat(35),    -- AUTHENTICATION/SECURITY DATA
           pbsz(36),    -- PROTECTION BUFFER SIZE
           prot(37),    -- DATA CHANNEL PROTECTION LEVEL
           ccc(38),     -- CLEAR COMMAND CHANNEL
           mic(39),     -- INTEGRITY PROTECTED COMMAND
           conf(40),    -- CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTED COMMAND
           enc(41),     -- PRIVACY PROTECTED COMMAND
           lang(42)     -- LANGUAGE
    }

A.2 POP3 Example

 This example defines verb enumeration values for the Post Office
 Protocol, Version 3, as defined in RFC 1939 and updated by RFC 2449.
 pop3 VERB-IDENTIFIER
     DESCRIPTION
       "The set of verbs for POP3 is derived from the list
        of commands defined for the Post Office Protocol,
        which are identified by case-insensitive strings.
        The commands are simply listed in the order found
        in the POP3 command summary."
     REFERENCE
       "Post Office Protocol, Version 3, RFC 1939, Section 9;
        POP3 Extension Mechanism, RFC 2449, Section 5."
     ::= {
           user(1),
           pass(2),
           quit(3),
           stat(4),
           list(5),
           retr(6),
           dele(7),
           noop(8),
           rset(9),

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 17] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

           apop(10),
           top(11),
           uidl(12),
           capa(13)
     }

A.3 SNMP Example

 This example defines verb enumeration values for the Simple Network
 Management Protocol, as defined in RFC 1905.
 snmp VERB-IDENTIFIER
     DESCRIPTION
       "The set of verbs for SNMP is derived from the list
        of PDU transaction types in the Protocol Operations
        document for SNMPv2.  Note that the 'Response'
        and 'Report' PDUs are not considered verbs, but are
        classified as belonging to the transaction type
        associated with the request PDU."
     REFERENCE
       "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the
        Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2),
        RFC 1905, Section 3."
     ::= {
           get(1),
           get-next(2),
           get-bulk(3),
           set(4),
           inform-request(5),
           trap(6)
     }

A.4 HTTP Example

 This example defines verb enumeration values for the Hypertext
 Transfer Protocol, version 1.1, as defined in RFC 2616.
 http VERB-IDENTIFIER
     DESCRIPTION
       "The set of verbs for HTTP is derived from the list
        of methods defined for the Hypertext Transfer Protocol,
        which are identified by case-sensitive strings.
        The commands are simply listed in the order found
        in the HTTP/1.1 documentation.  Methods commonly used
        in HTTP/1.0 are a proper subset of those used in HTTP/1.1.
        Both versions of the protocol are in current use."
     REFERENCE
        "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1, RFC 2616,

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 18] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

        Section 9; Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0, RFC
        1945, Section 8."
     ::= {
           options(1),
           get(2),
           head(3),
           post(4),
           put(5),
           delete(6),
           trace(7),
           connect(8)  -- reserved for future use by HTTP/1.1
     }

A.5 SMTP Example

 This example defines verb enumeration values for the Simple Mail
 Transfer Protocol as defined in RFC 2821.
 smtp VERB-IDENTIFIER
     DESCRIPTION
     "The set of verbs for SMTP is derived from the set of commands
      defined for the protocol.  These commands are identified
      by case-insensitive strings.  Commands are listed in the
      order found in RFC 2821.  The special "xcmd" verb is defined
      here as a catch-all for private-use commands, which must
      start with the letter 'X'."
     REFERENCE
       "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol -- RFC 2821, sections 4.1.1
        and 4.1.5."
     ::= {
           ehlo(1),  -- Extended HELLO (4.1.1.1)
           helo(2),  -- HELLO (4.1.1.1)
           mail(3),  -- MAIL (4.1.1.2)
           rcpt(4),  -- RECIPIENT (4.1.1.3)
           data(5),  -- DATA (4.1.1.4)
           rset(6),  -- RESET (4.1.1.5)
           vrfy(7),  -- VERIFY (4.1.1.6)
           expn(8),  -- EXPAND (4.1.1.7)
           help(9),  -- HELP (4.1.1.8)
           noop(10), -- NOOP (4.1.1.9)
           quit(11), -- QUIT (4.1.1.10)
           xcmd(12)  -- Catch-all for private-use "X" commands (4.1.5)
     }

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 19] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

Authors' Addresses

 Andy Bierman
 Cisco Systems, Inc.
 170 West Tasman Dr
 San Jose, CA USA 95134
 Phone: +1 408-527-3711
 EMail: abierman@cisco.com
 Chris Bucci
 Cisco Systems, Inc.
 170 West Tasman Dr
 San Jose, CA USA 95134
 Phone: +1 408-527-5337
 EMail: cbucci@cisco.com
 Russell Dietz
 Hifn, Inc.
 750 University Ave
 Los Gatos, CA, USA 95032-7695
 Phone: +1 408-399-3623
 EMail: rdietz@hifn.com
 Albin Warth
 EMail: dahoss@earthlink.net

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 20] RFC 3395 RMON Verb Identifiers September 2002

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
 English.
 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Bierman, et. al. Standards Track [Page 21]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3395.txt · Last modified: 2002/09/26 15:47 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki